• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Do non physical things exist?

arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Good stuff. Might be worth popping this on your reading list. It's very short (by my usual standards, anyway) and is a comprehensive treatment of why IC is nonsense.

But No Simpler!
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I'm willing to bet that Sparhafoc is gonna want to know what you consider to be a higher form of life.
Well if it were up to me, I would classify life forms, higher to lower, based on their ability to act independent of or to manipulate, their Enviroment. Why not?

How would evolutionists classify higher and lower creatures?
 
arg-fallbackName="Greg the Grouper"/>
Well if it were up to me, I would classify life forms, higher to lower, based on their ability to act independent of or to manipulate, their Enviroment. Why not?

How would evolutionists classify higher and lower creatures?
I'm not certain that scientists would classify organisms as being 'higher' or 'lower'. I would assume that they treat every organism as something that has evolved in such a way as to survive and reproduce, and that there isn't any other meaningful criterion by which to judge all of them.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Well if it were up to me, I would classify life forms, higher to lower, based on their ability to act independent of or to manipulate, their Enviroment. Why not?

How would evolutionists classify higher and lower creatures?
I can't speak for anybody else, but I wouldn't classify like this, not least because, as much as we like to put things in boxes, nature is rarely sufficiently discrete to do it robustly.

So, where does a dung beetle fit in your scheme of higher to lower? A spider? A dolphin? All manipulate their environments...
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
But we can't then treat matter as one thing, so saying it 'arranges itself' is misleading.

Matter is arranged by natural forces.
Alright, well I guess its good ya'll pointed that out then.
Well, you wouldn't need to believe in a magical man in the sky poofing things into existence with a wiggle of his ineffable nose.

Surely pretty much everything is mundane comparatively?
Well if consciousness can arise as easily as you say it does, it doesnt make the existence of God less likely to me. Something about evolution just doesnt seem right to me and Im probably not smart enough to figure out what that is. Biology is hard.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
So, where does a dung beetle fit in your scheme of higher to lower? A spider? A dolphin? All manipulate their environments...
I would classify a dolphin as higher than a spider. Spiders build webs but Dolphins form packs and hunt and have a greater range of mobility, they create social enviroments. The dolphin is obviously the higher life form.

Dung beetle I dont know..
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Dolphins form packs and hunt and have a greater range of mobility, they create social enviroments.
And ants? They have a huge range of mobility, work together in packs, manipulate their environment...
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Right but ants cant act independently of their environment. They cant play games, for example.
Huh? You're going to have to explain what you mean by 'act independently of environment'. If you mean they can play games, then I have a whole slew of organisms at hand that play. Indeed, play is a well-studied area (this is one of the things Dawkins studies, as ethology - animal behaviour - is his field of study), and it's clear that it's a huge part of the development of many organisms.

We're running out of criteria here to differentiate between higher and lower organisms, which should be telling us something about putting organisms on scales. This smacks of Aristotle's scala naturae, which has not only been debunked but has been shown to be really damaging. The only motivation for this mode of thinking is hubris.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Huh? You're going to have to explain what you mean by 'act independently of environment'. If you mean they can play games, then I have a whole slew of organisms at hand that play. Indeed, play is a well-studied area (this is one of the things Dawkins studies, as ethology - animal behaviour - is his field of study), and it's clear that it's a huge part of the development of many organisms.

We're running out of criteria here to differentiate between higher and lower organisms, which should be telling us something about putting organisms on scales. This smacks of Aristotle's scala naturae, which has not only been debunked but has been shown to be really damaging. The only motivation for this mode of thinking is hubris.
I know some animals play games. Rats do this.

To act independently of ones environment kinda means to do something that is not consequence of your surroundings. An ant has no choice but to react in a certain way. Humans have many choices in how they can react to signals and evironment.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Right but ants cant act independently of their environment.

Can any biological organism act independently of their environment?


They cant play games, for example.

They also can't quoth Shakespeare, but then we can't leave scent trails to organize our fellows with no further instructions needed. And so on - I've written extensively about this idea in the past if you want me to share an abundance of examples of why this isn't really a very cogent argument.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
I know some animals play games. Rats do this.

Basically all mammals play games: it's how they learn to behave as adult versions of their species.


To act independently of ones environment kinda means to do something that is not consequence of your surroundings. An ant has no choice but to react in a certain way. Humans have many choices in how they can react to signals and evironment.

This is fraught with problems though. Ants make choices all the time - they have to decide upon leaving the nest which trails is a) their duty and b) the most important/pressing.

Alternatively, you could ask whether we really make choices that are any different to ants - it's not like we can choose to be something other than a biological human choosing from among a suite of things biological humans can do. I can't just choose to flap my wings and fly away, thereby doing something that is not a consequence of my surroundings.

But this is all really a by-the-by - we're still trying to get to the point about how behavior evolves, I believe.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Well if it were up to me, I would classify life forms, higher to lower, based on their ability to act independent of or to manipulate, their Enviroment. Why not?

Then ants are necessarily among the highest of life forms as they manipulate their environments on unprecedented scales.

How would evolutionists classify higher and lower creatures?

Well, they wouldn't because evolution necessarily rejects any concept of Scala Naturae.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Basically all mammals play games: it's how they learn to behave as adult versions of their species.




This is fraught with problems though. Ants make choices all the time - they have to decide upon leaving the nest which trails is a) their duty and b) the most important/pressing.
A bee doesnt choose to sting someone. It is direct consequence of environment.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Then ants are necessarily among the highest of life forms as they manipulate their environments on unprecedented scales.
Right I would say you need to consider both the ability to manipulate and the ability to act independently of environment. Dolphins cant build things that ants can because they dont have required apendages. But I think they demonstrate an ability to act more independently. So you would have to weight one against the other. I dont think this impossible to do..im certainly no expert..
 
Back
Top